the poor, and would, therefore, relieve them but of a small part of their burdens by taking a share.  Were all those that are employed in the labours of luxuries added to the number of those employed in producing necessaries, and could these necessary labours be amicably divided among all, each man’s share might indeed be comparatively light; but desirable as such an amicable division would undoubtedly be, I cannot conceive any practical principle according to which it could take place.  It has been shewn, that the spirit of benevolence, guided by the strict impartial justice that Mr Godwin describes, would, if vigorously acted upon, depress in want and misery the whole human race.  Let us examine what would be the consequence, if the proprietor were to retain a decent share for himself, but to give the rest away to the poor, without exacting a task from them in return.  Not to mention the idleness and the vice that such a proceeding, if general, would probably create in the present state of society, and the great risk there would be, of diminishing the produce of land, as well as the labours of luxury, another objection yet remains.

Mr Godwin seems to have but little respect for practical principles; but I own it appears to me, that he is a much greater benefactor to mankind, who points out how an inferior good may be attained, than he who merely expatiates on the deformity of the present state of society, and the beauty of a different state, without pointing out a practical method, that might be immediately applied, of accelerating our advances from the one, to the other.

It has appeared that from the principle of population more will always be in want than can be adequately supplied.  The surplus of the rich man might be sufficient for three, but four will be desirous to obtain it.  He cannot make this selection of three out of the four without conferring a great favour on those that are the objects of his choice.  These persons must consider themselves as under a great obligation to him and as dependent upon him for their support.  The rich man would feel his power and the poor man his dependence, and the evil effects of these two impressions on the human heart are well known.  Though I perfectly agree with Mr Godwin therefore in the evil of hard labour, yet I still think it a less evil, and less calculated to debase the human mind, than dependence, and every history of man that we have ever read places in a strong point of view the danger to which that mind is exposed which is entrusted with constant power.

In the present state of things, and particularly when labour is in request, the man who does a day’s work for me confers full as great an obligation upon me as I do upon him.  I possess what he wants, he possesses what I want.  We make an amicable exchange.  The poor man walks erect in conscious independence; and the mind of his employer is not vitiated by a sense of power.